Sep 30, 2012 3:45pm EDT
se would go that were the most to credible critical. the places that the taliban was to take over, those at risk fors gains and potentially a takeover by country. instead, we wind up sending the first wave of new forces to abal part of the country with afgha relatively few people and i discovered the answer was sillym tribal rivalries. not iny afghanistan but thewn pentagon. uni it turned out that way that the troops were u.s. marines andn they wanted to bring down helicopters, their own logistics units and they didn't want to d work with u.s. army soldiers inr the areas in and around the city of kandahar.other here was the tail of our own services fighting with each other instead of fighting and common purpose against theinter. enemy. and the stories go on. oth there weras internal fightingnti within the state department, within the u.s. agency for international development. in one other tail i've recounted some in the book, we have somete serious fighting between president obama's national was i security team and senior people at the state department over tht whole question of w
Sep 30, 2012 4:00pm PDT
their allegiance to the taliban. >> the green on blue attacks are likely to increase as the date for the withdrawal grows closer and the taliban attacks, if anything, may diminish. why should the taliban take risks when they know we're leaving. it's more for the afghan national army of course now who want to show their loyalty to taliban. >> the defense secretary leon panetta says the taliban is trying to undermine our trust and joint chiefs of staff says that won't work. >> and one army commander told me insider attacks are an affront to their honor, at odds with their culture. as for us, we are adapting to changes in that threat as well. that's what professional militaries do. >> reporter: the number of deaths from insiders attacks has risen dramatic from 20, two years ago to 35 last year and 53 this year so far, even as both sides are working hard to stop them with beefing up security on joint missions and ante up background checks on recruits. >> harris: thank you. we've heard them speak about each other and now they'll speak to each other and the nation of course. what's at steak at the debat
Sep 30, 2012 3:30pm PDT
't know if they need to turn their war to the taliban or to the afghan government. what we do see is an uneasiness among the afghans in the province. >> that's nbc nightly news for this sunday, a reminder, our special coverage in this region. remember "at the brink" continues all week long. thanks for watching and good night.
Sep 30, 2012 10:30am EDT
? that there are people who believe what the taliban stands for or what al qaeda stands for and i don't think we should forget the fact that he was the head of isi and openly training and how can you persuade them to actually stop the havens in pakistan? >> i disagree profoundly with what you have said. my contact with pakistan -- and yours is much longer than mind, but i would like to coach you to agree with there is a feeling of enormous frustration. i wouldn't argue that it often comes out -- we call it the man on the moon problem. nothing happens that the viceroy doesn't want, that notion of american omnipotence. and the frustration is mainly in not with us. i think when you have more than one it sentences with people, it does come out that they may blame us for the perceived support of people who have governed them badly, but the end is the way they are governed. when you look at polling data and what i would say is unscientific -- some would call a country club data, there is an enormous frustration with that united states, but an enormous -- an enormous desire to give its approval to pakistan. i